“But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men. But I know that you have not the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:36 – 47).
One of the more interesting debates surrounding Jesus is his claim to authority. Those who dismissed him said that he did not have any witnesses to attest to him, and all he does is make declarations of himself for himself by himself. In a word, they are suggesting that he is making claims which transcend his ability to affirm. And yet to this he says that he does not claim authority for himself: he has been given it in his mission by the Father. Moreover, he declares the Scriptures, from Moses onward, teach about him and proclaim his authority. If his opponents truly had faith in the Scriptures they would trust in him.
One can imagine what would be said to that today: “That’s an argument from authority.” He is claiming an external authority, which can be interpreted in many different ways, as a witness for himself. His claim can therefore be dismissed as fallacious. If he had any argument to make, he would do so. That he does not proves the untrustworthiness of his teachings. The claim is that Jesus’ appeal to authority falls under the “argumentum ad verecundiam” fallacy. And this fallacy is brought up as a way to reject him and his teachings. We find appeals to this fallacy quite common today because we have become contentious and find it difficult to respect people in authority (although, like with many fallacies, the way this is done is ridiculous to the extreme, because the appeal to this fallacy is itself an appeal to authority [the rules of logic] if one followed through with the common interpretation given to this fallacy which suggests no one can rely upon authorities at all).
So what is it that is going wrong here? Why would it be wrong to denounce Jesus by placing this logical fallacy upon him? Why is an appeal to the authority of the principles of logic not fallacious?
It is because not all appeals to authority are in error, because not all the claims of authorities are wrong. To follow this kind of reasoning is to follow this fallacy in a way it is not meant to be used. What it says is that one cannot use one’s placement in a position of authority as a claim that what they say is necessarily correct. Just because one is President of the United States does not mean your claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction being hidden in Iraq is true (as history has shown). Secondarily, it points out that if the speaker is referencing someone other than themselves as an authority, there is a question as to whether or not their interpretive claims of an authority’s words are necessarily what the authority themselves meant: it is easy to take words out of context and make a source mean the exact opposite of their intent. So one must always be careful about the way one references the words of others.
But there are legitimate reasons to appeal to authority: those who have mastered a subject are more likely to understand its intricate details and provide an accurate description of it, while those who are unfamiliar with a subject, are more likely to misrepresent it if they tried to explain it to others. Being such an authority does lend credibility but not proof for one’s words, and quoting such an authority should at least give people something to discuss and reflect upon. Thus, while a recognizable authority does not prove a statement is fact, it does provide evidence for it. And in the passage quoted above, Jesus’ interlocutors asked for witnesses of his authority, that is, evidence for his claim to authority. An appeal to authority is fallacious only when all questions, all opposition, are dismissed just because an authority has spoken. Pragmatic prudence demands that in our daily life we must accept some sort of authority if we want to live in the world and act in it. We can’t investigate everything, we can’t question everything we hear; we are always acting, making decisions, and those decisions are based not upon infallible knowledge, but on practical wisdom. Practical wisdom is the application of what we have learned about the world from our experiences (and this leads to the authority of our senses), what we have abstracted from our experience (and the authority of intellectual speculation), and what we have learned from others (through their experiences and intellectual activity).
When people hold an authority in common, it is also appropriate to reference it and what it has to say on a subject. Thus, both Jesus and his opponents agree with the authority of Moses (and most will accept the authority of the prophets and wisdom literature of Scripture as well, but not all). In this context, therefore, it was right for Jesus to put it forward as a witness in their debate (although, of course, the application of the Scripture might still have to be explained and dealt with). It is also within this context that the rules of logic, when commonly accepted, do not become appeals to authority when used in a debate.
There is, however, a question which needs to be examined. How does one go about discerning which authorities to accept and which to reject? Buddhist logicians had to ask themselves this question, because Buddhism was concerned about epistemological questions, and Siddhartha himself said that one should not believe him just because he had said something, but that one should test what he said and decide for themselves whether or not what he said was true. This, it would seem, would be a critical position which would make it difficult to have faith, to trust in any external authority.
So why should one accept what an authority said? The answer Buddhists gave to this is simple. It is appropriate to have faith and trust in someone while still being open to the possibility that one’s faith and trust is in error. The key is to be willing to reject the claims of an authority if evidence comes out which proves the authority wrong. However, one can not always test all the claims of a given authority. So what one is to do is find whether or not one can discern if some of the extraordinary or unusual claims of an authority can be shown to be true; if so, then you have a reason to trust their claims, even those you have not yet proven to be true. This is how we normally act. The people we trust are those who have proven themselves to us, not because we have tested everything about them and their claims about themselves, but that those tests we have done have come out positive. Thus, for Buddhists logicians, Siddhartha’s extraordinary claims, claims which transcend what one can normally know, are able to be believed in, because those claims which one can test have proven to be true.
This line of reasoning could be, and should be used, in all kinds of debates, not just religious ones. It is helpful to know what others, those who can be seen as authorities, think on a topic which we know nothing about. And for the most part, is that not what most people are doing when they quote someone? It’s not being suggested that such quotes prove beyond a doubt what is said within it is true; rather it is the suggestion that this is an expert on the subject, and perhaps, just perhaps, because of their expertise, we should at least pay attention and ponder what they have to say. Test their words, by all means; but don’t reject what they have to say merely because we don’t like what they have to say. Often, truth isn’t what we want to hear.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In